Blog PostsPresident Obama reaches out to Iran
By Richmond Gardner at Mar 22, 2009 |
|
President Obama reached out to Iran on the 20th of March with a video message where he made it clear that the US was knowledgeable of, and respected, Iran's people and culture. He offered Iran the chance for the "Islamic Republic of Iran to take its rightful place in the community of nations" and offered some conditions for that to happen. Basically, Iran must be a responsible world citizen. WorldTribune.com says "Israel has sought a U.S. commitment to limit its dialogue with Iran" but that the "White House and the senior echelon of the Obama administration have refused a dialogue with Israel on the Iranian threat."
Israeli Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi had no difficulty getting access to all manner of US officials upon his visit last year with the Bush Administration, but didn't find his reception very warm with the Obama Administration. He was able to get a meeting with only National Security Advisor James Jones and Jones only wanted to discuss Israeli relations with the West Bank and Gaza Strip. The Obama Administration refused to "make it clear that the military option against Iran's nuclear program exists."
The Wall Street Journal makes it clear that conservative pro-Israelis have something to worry about.
It was wryly noted that the competition was hot and heavy, but Robert Spencer of "Jihad Watch" was the first right-wing blogger "out of the gate" to deploy words like "appeasement" and "aggression." And the Rosett Report of Pajamas Media was the first to bring up Neville Chamberlain and Munich in 1938. Trita Parsi, president of the National Iranian American Council, a group that supports U.S. engagement with Tehran, notes that: "[Obama is] signaling he’s not looking for regime change; he’s recognizing Iran’s system." That's a pretty darn huge difference between this president and the last one.
Karim Sadjadpour of the Carnegie Endowment evaluates Obama's efforts in the following way:
Rather than strengthen these hardliners, Obama’s overtures will put pressure on them to justify their often gratuitous enmity toward the United States. Most Iranians recognize that, in 2009, the “death to America” culture of 1979 is obsolete—it only prevents the country from fulfilling its enormous potential.
Whereas the Bush administration united Iran’s disparate political actors against a common external threat, the Obama administration, I believe, is going to deepen the divisions and incongruities among Iran’s political elites.
Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei sounds very unimpressed with Obama's overture, showing that it's far too early to judge the results.
US needs Iran onboard
By Andrews, John at Mar 23, 2009 14:15 PM
The US desperately needs Iran onboard now 'to keep the lid' on Iraq.
As well as freeing one million plus Iraqis from their troublesome lives, the USA / UK have unwittingly made Iran into a very substantial power in the region. But why is this such a surprise when 60% of Iraqis are Shia Muslims who look to Iran for guidance?
I recently re-read Noam Chomsky's op-ed "The United States versus Iraq: A Modest Proposal" dated November the 1st, 2002 in Interventions, Noam Chomsky, Penguin Books. Professor Chomsky writes 'Adopting the official interpretation, we then face the obvious question: "How can we achieve the announced goals?" On these assumptions, we see at once that the administration has overlooked a simple alternative to invading Iraq. Let Iran do it. That simple plan seems to have been ignored, perhaps because it would be regarded as insane, and rightly so. But it is instructive to ask why.'
Professor Chomsky is playing Devil's Advocate and has his tongue very firmly in his cheek. He acknowledges that his proposal is morally repugnant but then so was the alternative. But the outcome would be the same - Iran would become the de facto controller of Iraq?
Oh if only the Masters of the Universe would read some history, some Chomsky, some Pilger.......
Reply this comment
By Rendon, G.l. at Mar 23, 2009 07:43 AM
I'm pleased that the Israeli general got a cool reception, and that this administration (although I'm not holding by breath) may be/will be tougher on Israel, but I had a different take on Obama's video towards Iran. It was so vague, with no actual demands mapped out, that it was hard for me to evaluate it one way or another but it seemed like a nice, more "diplomatic" one-sided demand towards Iran, and I don't see a rightly skeptical Iran being thrilled with that unless the US also makes some concessions or apologies.
I think it's arrogant to the core that we can still tell another nation when it can " take its rightful place in the community of nations", and the biggest diplomatic gesture Obama can make to the Middle East can be climbing down from the world police high horse for just a minute. After all, our presence has been nothing but oppressive and destructive there and we're the ones who have to, or should, approach humbly, and I don't think Obama's video was quite humble.
Also, since these "responsibilities" are probably concessions to our demands they abandon any nuclear power ambition, we have to actually prove they're going to make nuclear weapons, and we've failed miserably there thusfar. The rest of it...probably them not funding Hezbollah/Hamas, their influence in Iran, etc., simply attest to our usual imperialist ambitions. Basically, like the Ayatollah I wasn't impressed with Obama's video either, but we can only hope for some diplomatic breakthrough, although I'm scared it was more a trojan horse.
Reply this comment
Re:
By Rendon, G.l. at Mar 23, 2009 10:07 AM
I meant Iran's influence in Iraq. Here's a take on the video tend to agree with:
http://www.counterpunch.com/whitbeck03202009.html
Reply this comment
Re:
By Petersen, Robert at Mar 23, 2009 14:05 PM
Like you, I also thought Obama sounded a tad preachy, but certainly a great deal more open and level than King George the II. Ever the optimist, I judge this to be a genuine attempt toward an open door policy, but Iran needs time to judge whether this is earnest. They are not dim-witted, they have a very long memory, and their caution is justified. Time will tell. But what to do with Israel, a nation state most of us understand to be a leading sponsor of terror. Perhaps a better relation with Iran will, in time, soften Israel. All speculation on my part, but without Washington acting like a lap dog to the Israel lobby, perhaps they will walk with a little more prudence. Who knows? But what about the crimes committed by the Israeli military toward Palestine? In my view, that’s the issue Obama needs to address.
Reply this comment